Rescue Me has the results of a national study showing the top ten reasons why dogs and cats find themselves homeless.

Check it out, you might be surprised - or maybe not, if you're clued in to animal welfare issues.

Remember those words?  They sparked the American Revolution.

Why is it that politicans these days ignore the majority of their constituents when formulating laws that affect those citizens directly?

Ontario's former Attorney General Michael Bryant liked to talk about all the correspondence he received while promoting his 'pit bull' owner scapegoating scheme - the much-ballyhooed 5,000 emails.

What he didn't tell people was that the overwhelming majority of those letters, faxes, phone calls and emails were undoubtedly opposed to his murderous plot.

He liked to talk about how he consulted with 'experts' prior to presenting the law for First Reading (which was, of course, already written and in the Box until an opportune time to unleash it on dog owners in the province presented itself).

The thing is, many of those experts don't remember that meeting.

He talked about the Committee hearings as if there had been support for the insanity there.

Funny, the testimony is available in Hansard and it clearly shows that the overwhelming majority of witnesses were opposed to the 'pit bull' ban.  So does the file of written presentations and research materials for Committee - there are no more than a handful of hen-scratched letters in support of the ban among all those papers. I looked for them.

Every expert person and organization opposed the plan.  Even the City of Kitchener, which has the dubious honour of pioneering breed banning in Ontario, opposed the idea of adding purebred dogs to the legislation and advised the government to put more thought into it.

The only people who supported it were a few individuals who had no experience with dogs, didn't understand what 'breed' means and in the majority of cases, just didn't think they liked the way 'pit bulls' looked or had a personal anecdote about an encounter with a purported 'pit bull'.  There were a couple of people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time and suffered serious injuries from dog attacks but that's hardly enough evidence to penalize every owner of a short-haired, boxy-muzzled mutt in Ontario.

Bryant used media reports to shore up his case, because there is no credible evidence to support something as irrational, un-Canadian and pointless as slating a shape of dog for extinction.  The whole thing is based on fiction.

Unless, of course, you are being influenced by, or are a fifth columnist for, the animal rights/liberation/protection movement which has the goal of rendering domestic animals extinct.

*

I've focused on the situation in California lately because what happens in California won't stay in California. 

The Dead Pets Act, AB1634, has undergone so many amendments, including last-minute amendments, that it is unrecognizable when compared with its first iteration.

Initially, it mandated the surgical sterilization of every dog and cat in California by the age of four months - with very few exceptions.  It allowed a local town clerk to decide whether or not someone could breed dogs and what kind of dogs they could breed.

Due to recent changes, it now reads like a badly-written municipal bylaw.  The nut of it is that if a dog owner is cited three times (cat owners twice) for what amounts to a bylaw infraction (running at large, unlicensed, nuisance barking), then their dog must undergo radical, invasive surgery as a penalty.

Who's driving this bus?

I'm told that so many people opposed AB1634 last year that the fax machines in government offices broke down.

Its author, Levine, no longer holds public office.

AB1634 lay dormant for a year but reared its deaths-head again this summer in what appears to be a desperate bid to pass something, anything, regardless of its utility.  Due to all the amendments, the way the Bill looked this past Friday wasn't the way it looked last Monday.

*

What's with these politicians who ignore their constituents?

They are elected to represent all citizens equally in a fair, objective manner.  It's called public service for a reason - it's not about them.

Some of these people act more like royalty - unaccountable, secretive, insufferably arrogant and entitled to their entitlements. 

They believe that they know what's best for people.

They believe they can tell citizens what kind of dogs they should own.

They believe they can tell citizens how to look after their pets.

They believe they can decide when, and whether, a pet should be subject to surgery.

They believe they can enact sweeping, harmful legislation such as Ontario's 'breed' ban or California's intrusive AB1634 in order to address the tiny minority who are either already criminals or are a nuisance that can be controlled with enforcement of existing legislation.

They misrepresent information.  They ignore facts.  They hold their hands over their ears and hum when experts try to educate them.

They are not representing the people who put them into office.  It appears they are representing well-financed lobbyists and campaign contributors whose slick sales tactics obscure the real agenda.  That's not the way it's supposed to work.

I'm getting pretty tired of taxation without representation.

How about you?

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

The Government Does Not Belong

in the Dog Houses of the Nation

I'm on the run, I hear the hounds
My luck is up, my chips are down
So goodbye baby, so long now
Wish me luck, I'm going to need it child
The hand of fate is on me now
Yeah it's too late
Too late baby, too late now
The hand of fate is on me now
The hand of fate is heavy now

It pick you up and knock you down

                            -M. Jagger, K. Richards

Hey, you know that stupid plastic hand?  The one they use in shelters to tease strange dogs with to find out if they take umbrage at having their mealtimes disturbed?  If they do, it's curtains - no homes for them!

One Bark at a Time has a great little script up today that captures the whole stupid plastic hand schtick (stick?) perfectly.

Warning:  Don't hit that link unless you want a laugh.

Thank you, Peter Worthington, for your great column about Ontario's revised Animal Welfare Act (2008).

It's time for those in media, who have a way of getting information out to the public, to start examining this issue in detail - as you have done in today's Toronto Sun.

Something screwy is going on in the strange world of animal welfare in Ontario.

In July, hearings were held on the McGuinty government's Animal Welfare Act (Bill 50), which got scant publicity.

A contentious issue revolved around legislation giving the Ontario SPCA control over the name "humane society," making every humane society not linked to the OSPCA illegal.

The Toronto Humane Society (THS) has led the charge against giving the OSPCA this right. Conservative MPP Dunlop Garfield and NDP MPPs Cheri DiNovo and Peter Kormos have vigorously questioned aspects of the act, and oppose giving the OSPCA exclusive control of the name "humane society."

Indications are the government will accede to the opposition on this issue.

More serious is the intent to give OSPCA animal inspectors more power than real police have.

Let's hope this ball will now get rolling.

Oh, and I'm sorry I called you Cranky Pants last year, but you know you deserved it.

It sounds as though the people in Grand Island, Nebraska actually know something about the dog bite issue.

There's some good common sense going on down there.

GRAND ISLAND — While the Nebraska cities of Osceola and Minden have added dog breed bans to their city laws this summer, Grand Island will not pursue such a ban.

The Animal Advisory Board met on Monday and was adamant that a ban on any dog breed not become a part of the Grand Island city code.

City Attorney Dale Shotkoski had asked the board if it wanted to pursue a ban after his office received calls recently about pit bulls.

"Any type of dog can do severe damage," said Laurie Dethloff, Central Nebraska Humane Society executive director. "We prefer to make the owners accountable, not the breed."

It is so refreshing to read an article like this one and realize that there are people out there who understand the issue and are in a position to do something about it.

Refreshing but unfortunately much too rare.

Thanks, Grand Island.  You made my day.

It sounds as though all the recent attacks in BC were the fault of one weirdo who tripped around with a pack of nasty dogs described as 'pit bulls'.  What a bizarre story.

Man arrested for pit-bull attacks

Katie Mercer, The Province

Published: Monday, August 11, 2008

VANCOUVER -- A man wanted in connection with a rash of pit-bull attacks was arrested Monday morning by Vancouver police.

Hal Harris, the owner of the pack of five pit bulls, was arrested on a warrant from Nanaimo. The dogs have been seized and are being held at the Surrey SPCA.

"The dogs are in custody and will not be released in the public," said B.C. SPCA spokesperson, Lorie Chortyk. 

The former Sidney resident was wanted in relation to a number of attacks by pit bulls on Vancouver Island and in Surrey in the last 11 months, including one in North Saanich on July 7.

Don't let your guard down in BC, though.  The foaming mob has been incited by the newsies out there so you aren't out of the woods yet.

Here's the rest of the story.

There's another article in the Surrey Leader.  Check out the 'pit bull' pictured with it.